logo Sign In

Taking a stand against toxic fandom (and other ) — Page 7

Author
Time
 (Edited)

LordZerome1080 said:

This whole conversation is so awkward to watch. Thanks Ojason for ending it. In terms of the topic at hand I suggest appointing some sort of representative of this site to do a you tube video detailing the more positive aspects of our cause.

Seeing as opinions vary among the moderators themselves on what qualifies as “toxic”, our official position is that we have no official position. I don’t even know if everyone here could agree on what would constitute an adequate official release of the original trilogy, let alone anything remotely political.

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

As OP, oojason has the right to drive the discussion in the direction he sees fit, just as any of you do within your own topics. If you think “toxic fandom” is overblown and you want to discuss that, create a new topic and go to town.

Edit: I was mistaken about oojason being the OP. It’s up to screams in the void to decide what’s on topic or not.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Photoshopping Daisy Ridley’s face onto a muscle body isn’t necessarily toxic. It could be funny if done right. It’s definitely fair game. I’ve made fun of a ton of actors in my day. Why are they off limits?

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Photoshopping Daisy Ridley’s face onto a muscle body isn’t necessarily toxic. It could be funny if done right. It’s definitely fair game. I’ve made fun of a ton of actors in my day. Why are they off limits?

Even less toxic would be photoshopping the face of a movie character onto a muscle-man body. I don’t see any problem with making fun of Rey or making her look buff to illustrate some perception that her character is overpowered, which seems to be the context in this case.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, that was another thing I didn’t mention. It’s obviously in reference to the character (as played by Daisy Ridley). It’s not like they randomly did some photoshop job of her minding her own business at a restaurant or grocery store or something.

Hating the movies and hating the characters isn’t toxic. I remember when big fans of the prequels smeared people like us with these exact same statements. Being a toxic fan is when you’re insulting and berating and harassing the people making the movies or the people that like them.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

My friend is toxic against the EU and is for Disney’s version and says that any who don’t like the new stuff are sexist or are pro-harassment which he accused me of being when we both know that I’m not. To make things a tad worse he also tries to act like he’s not like this.

Author
Time

I’m starting to have second thoughts about wearing a Star Wars shirt in public now for fear I’ll get sucked into that kind of unpleasant conversation with a stranger. Who needs that kind of aggravation?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

LordZerome1080 said:

This whole conversation is so awkward to watch. Thanks Ojason for ending it. In terms of the topic at hand I suggest appointing some sort of representative of this site to do a you tube video detailing the more positive aspects of our cause.

Seeing as opinions vary among the moderators themselves on what qualifies as “toxic”, our official position is that we have no official position. I don’t even know if everyone here could agree on what would constitute an adequate official release of the original trilogy, let alone anything remotely political.

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

As OP, oojason has the right to drive the discussion in the direction he sees fit, just as any of you do within your own topics. If you think “toxic fandom” is overblown and you want to discuss that, create a new topic and go to town.

Edit: I was mistaken about oojason being the OP. It’s up to screams in the void to decide what’s on topic or not.

and I agree with Jay here , although I do think the title of moderator implies one is always a representative of the site . I understand you are human and have your own views though .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I’m starting to have second thoughts about wearing a Star Wars shirt in public now for fear I’ll get sucked into that kind of unpleasant conversation with a stranger. Who needs that kind of aggravation?

But how often does this really happen? I think the anonymity and impersonal nature of the internet facilitates a great deal of the toxicity around Star Wars from both sides.

I don’t know anyone in real life who says “chicks ruined Star Wars”, nor do I know anyone who thinks that people who criticize The Last Jedi are all sexist. Maybe I just don’t get out enough.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

and moviefreakmind said , " Being a toxic fan is when you’re insulting and berating and harassing the people making the movies or the people that like them." Folks , these are the exact people I speak to in making this topic , Kelly Marie Tran , Ahmed Best etc . I understand that some people genuinely do not like the direction of the new films or the decisions of those making them , but this is not the place to heir those concerns , you probably SHOULD start your own topic to express your views and if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/

Author
Time

pleasehello said:

SilverWook said:

I’m starting to have second thoughts about wearing a Star Wars shirt in public now for fear I’ll get sucked into that kind of unpleasant conversation with a stranger. Who needs that kind of aggravation?

But how often does this really happen? I think the anonymity and impersonal nature of the internet facilitates a great deal of the toxicity around Star Wars from both sides.

I don’t know anyone in real life who says “chicks ruined Star Wars”, nor do I know anyone who thinks that people who criticize The Last Jedi are all sexist. Maybe I just don’t get out enough.

Yeah, I agree it’s probably rare. I’ve just had one too many awkward conversations initiated by a random loony over the years without wearing an invitation. 😉

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.

However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon?

No, it isn’t. Though this has already been answered, yes?

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate

I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.

I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
 

If I want to see shite like this…

(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))

… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.

Just my two-penneth.
 

… And I tire easily of circular repetitive conversations where one side of the ‘debate’ can’t remember, or doesn’t acknowledge, questions which have already been addressed and answered, all just a few hours before.
 

Edit - apologies, this was posted before seeing screams in the void’s last post.
 

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.

However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon?

No, it isn’t. Though this has already been answered, yes?

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate

I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.

I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
 

If I want to see shite like this…

(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))

… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.

Just my two-penneth.
 

… And I tire easily of circular repetitive conversations where one side of the ‘debate’ can’t remember, or doesn’t acknowledge, questions which have already been addressed and answered, all just a few hours before.
 

Edit - apologies, this was posted before seeing screams in the void’s last post.
 

It’s all good man .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/

Author
Time

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

Which is exactly why I think we should put a policy in place to help maintain the boundaries between participating and moderating. We often do consult one another before taking any action, and oojason has been particularly careful to ask for our opinions on things before moving forward.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

Which is exactly why I think we should put a policy in place to help maintain the boundaries between participating and moderating. We often do consult one another before taking any action, and oojason has been particularly careful to ask for our opinions on things before moving forward.

Well, I suppose we shouldn’t allways try to see the worst in people, and bias works both ways. So, I apologize to oojason for acting like a dick, and casting doubt on his intentions.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around. On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Personal animosity and bias? Mate, you seem to have a problem with mod requests or mods having opinions - here and in the past, or inferring things that just aren’t there. Or recently where you started to twist my words and also had some sort of pop about me posting articles or something - before I cut short our last conversation. You seem to have a problem with my views or me - and that’s okay - yet stop twisting my words and making shite up - let your argument or views stand on their own merits.

There’s more info in my reply to your PM - correcting and highlighting more wrongful accusations from you not based in fact.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

“I won’t ask again” is a pretty clear threat of a ban.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around. On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Personal animosity and bias? Mate, you seem to have a problem with mod requests or mods having opinions - here and in the past, or inferring things that just aren’t there. Or recently where you started to twist my words and also had some sort of pop about me posting articles or something - before I cut short our last conversation. You seem to have a problem with my views or me - and that’s okay - yet stop twisting my words and making shite up - let your argument or views stand on their own merits.

There’s more info in my reply to your PM - correcting and highlighting more wrongful accusations from you not based in fact.

I don’t see how drawing a comparison between buff Rey and cartoon Mohammed constitutes toxicity, though it may be starting to stray off-topic.

EDIT: Now I want to see a “Buff Rey & Cartoon Mohammed” comic strip.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

As stated above:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

…is a pretty clear threat of a ban. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

Likely? So this was preemptive mod action, just in case the thread got further away from the thread subject? This does not seem to adhere to the policy of not modding a thread’s content unless requested by the OP. Only two people responded to the Mohammed/communism analogies, which were you and Frink. The debate still centered on toxic fandom. As such, I don’t see how these few posts constitute derailing a thread outside of you personally not liking my analogies to the point of calling them toxic, thus using your own personal point of view and your mod status to forcably shut down the discussion on this matter.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around.

No, I took issue with the latter part of Kittythatsit’s post, which you endorsed. I argued why I disagreed, feeling some fans are using the label “toxic” to smear their opponents, which led to the communism analogy. Frink chimed in on how a caricature of Rey was not acceptable, after which I used the Mohammed caricature as an analogy. You then claimed Mohammed caricatures are toxic, and apparently so are my posts by association.

On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Calling someone toxic for his opinion seems pretty consistent with disdain to me, and ironically consistent with my argument, that some fans are using the term “toxic” to smear their opponents.

I’ve stated it before, but there’s a highly intolerant atmosphere here towards critics of the new canon. People and sites are painted with the same brush, and labeled sexist, misogynist, toxic, and what not. I take issue with that, and with the people that perpetuate, or endorse such behaviour.

Over time many critics have been bullied out of this site, where biased mod action in these people’s view and my own has been a factor, with specifically you coming down hard on anyone with a strongly negative opinion, where it is often not clear whether you’re expressing your personal opinion, or acting as a mod of the site. Jay’s politics thread has been a breath of fresh air, in what is sadly becoming an echo chamber of extremely negative opinions towards a large section of the fandom.

I tried to get things back to civil discourse with an apology, but it seems, it sadly was to no avail.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

As stated above:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

…is a pretty clear threat of a ban. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

I was going to issue you a warning and maybe temp-lock the thread to cool down. Yet you state that was a threat to ban… ok. and then ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’… right…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

Likely? So this was preemptive mod action, just in case the thread got further away from the thread subject? This does not seem to adhere to the policy of not modding a thread’s content unless requested by the OP. Only two people responded to the Mohammed/communism analogies, which were you and Frink. The debate still centered on toxic fandom. As such, I don’t see how these few posts constitute derailing a thread outside of you personally not liking my analogies to the point of calling them toxic, thus using your own personal point of view and your mod status to forcably shut down the discussion on this matter.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around.

No, I took issue with the latter part of Kittythatsit’s post, which you endorsed. I argued why I disagreed, feeling some fans are using the label “toxic” to smear their opponents, which led to the communism analogy. Frink chimed in on how a caricature of Rey was not acceptable, after which I used the Mohammed caricature as an analogy. You then claimed Mohammed caricatures are toxic, and apparently so are my posts by association.

On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Calling someone toxic for his opinion seems pretty consistent with disdain to me, and ironically consistent with my argument, that some fans are using the term “toxic” to smear their opponents.

I’ve stated it before, but there’s a highly intolerant atmosphere here towards critics of the new canon. People and sites are painted with the same brush, and labeled sexist, misogynist, toxic, and what not. I take issue with that, and with the people that perpetuate, or endorse such behaviour.

Over time many critics have been bullied out of this site, where biased mod action in these people’s view and my own has been a factor, with specifically you coming down hard on anyone with a strongly negative opinion, where it is often not clear whether you’re expressing your personal opinion, or acting as a mod of the site. Jay’s politics thread has been a breath of fresh air, in what is sadly becoming an echo chamber of extremely negative opinions towards a large section of the fandom.

I tried to get things back to civil discourse with an apology, but it seems, it sadly was to no avail.

Mate, you’re repeating yourself again, as said before I stated it’s no problem you disagree with me or have a different opinion.

And as posted to you before - I asked you to get back on topic - not end the discussion…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

This was after me stating…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

Seems pretty clear that isn’t ‘using your authority to end the debate’. That’s a mod asking you to keep to the thread topic without bringing further inflammatory and toxic references into the debate - though this has already previously been explained to you.
 

You state many critics have been bullied off the site - with me coming down hard on anyone with a negative opinion… again, it’s been explained that I don’t have a problem with anyone’s differing opinion - in this very thread I’ve stated it’s okay that you disagree, why wouldn’t it be? We’re a discussion forum. A handful of members have been temp-banned for threadcrapping and consistently derailing threads - though only after repeated requests to stop, followed by warnings, followed by temp-bans, and on a rare occasion a perm-ban when they then attacked the mods and site. Again, feel free to PM me and discuss the issue further, should you wish.

It seems you may have some issues with how I moderate, with myself or my views - if so please don’t reply to my posts looking to kick off, twist my words, and make false claims then offer a backhanded apology. If you have issues with me, and it’s clear that you do, then PM me or feel free to report me to Jay or the others mods. It’ll save other threads being derailed by this sort of thing - the very thing I was trying to avoid in a decent and intriguing thread. Yet here we are.

I’m going to temp-lock this thread now. I’ll leave it for Jay and other mods to decide how to clean it up, or address it - or just re-open it later. Apologies to screams in the void and anyone else wishing to partake in the actual thread discussion.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

here are a few articles and links that address the issues that this thread is about …https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44708983 https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/6/5/17429196/kelly-marie-tran-instagram-deleted-harassment-star-wars-rose-last-jedi http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-wars/18828/star-wars’-jake-lloyd-on-how-the-phantom-menace-ended-his-acting-career http://thenerdybird.com/daisy-ridley-harassed-off-instagram-political-opinion/ and to be clear on the intentions of this thread , if you have something supportive to say , this is the place , if not , take it elsewhere or start your own topic . I think I have done my part to be as clear as I can .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/